Published on:

By and

Yesterday, the FCC released its Report and Order adopting a schedule of regulatory fees to cover the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2026 salaries and expenses appropriation of $416,112,000.00.  The Order largely follows the approach set out in the FCC’s April 2026 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), continuing the full-time employee (“FTE”)-based methodology the FCC has used in recent years and again reallocating certain FTEs from indirect FTEs of the Office of General Counsel, Office of Economics and Analytics, and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, to direct FTEs of various of the core licensing bureaus.

The Order largely adopts the proposals made in the NPRM, except with respect to three FTEs.  Specifically, while the NPRM proposed to reallocate two FTEs from direct FTEs of the Media Bureau to indirect FTEs of the Enforcement Bureau, the Order declines to do so, finding on further review that the work of those FTEs directly benefits Media Bureau fee payors.  In addition, the Commission reallocated one additional indirect FTE from the Office of General Counsel as direct to the Media Bureau based on increased OGC work on Media Bureau matters this year.

The net result is 62 FTEs reallocated as direct to the various core bureaus (versus the 59 net proposed in the NPRM), with the Media Bureau receiving 10 reallocated FTEs rather than the 7 originally proposed.  The Order also increases the number of radio station payors over which the regulatory fees will be spread compared to that in its original fee proposal, so individual radio station regulatory fees will be slightly lower than those originally proposed.  Because there was no similar adjustment to the number of TV payors, TV stations will see the effect of the additional three Media Bureau FTEs, resulting in slightly higher fees on the TV side.

The Order rejected broadcasters’ requests to reduce the fee burden on existing payor categories by adopting new fee payor categories (such as an equipment certification lab category or new categories for experimental licenses and unlicensed spectrum users).  In declining that request, the Order simply asserts a lack of “detailed evidence of materially changed circumstances” to justify a departure from the Commission’s past determinations.  The Order also declined requests to increase the de minimis fee exemption threshold from $1,000 to $1,200.

On the Space Bureau side, the Order similarly refused to create requested new fee payor categories for experimental licenses, unlicensed use, and automated frequency coordination systems, and made adjustments to the number of payors based on updated data provided by commenters such as SES, Spire, and Eutelsat.  The Order declined requests from satellite and earth station operators to help moderate year to year swings in their fee obligations by capping or phasing in fee increases or delaying them pending completion of the ongoing Space Modernization rulemaking.

Based on past years, we expect the FCC to soon release a Public Notice announcing that the Commission’s Registration System (CORES) is ready to accept FY 2026 regulatory fee payments and establishing a late September deadline for the fee payments to be made.

Published on:

By and

At today’s Open Meeting, the FCC unanimously adopted a Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to accelerate the transition to the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard (NextGen TV).  The NPRM sets the stage for significant progress towards a nationwide transition, proposing to shift from mandatory to voluntary ATSC 1.0 simulcasting because broadcasters are now “best positioned to determine how to continue to serve their viewers while rolling out 3.0 services.”

Under current rules adopted in the FCC’s 2017 First NextGen TV Report and Order, full-power and Class A stations seeking to transition to the ATSC 3.0 standard must maintain an ATSC 1.0 simulcast of their primary stream through a partnership with one or more ATSC 1.0 “host” stations assigned to the same designated market area, and the ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream must be “substantially similar” to the ATSC 3.0 stream.  The simulcasting requirement was intended to be transitional, and the Commission initially scheduled the “substantially similar” requirement to sunset on July 17, 2023.  As that date approached, however, the FCC adopted the June 2023 Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking extending the sunset date to July 17, 2027.

Since then, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and many individual broadcasters have continued to press the FCC for greater simulcasting flexibility in order to more effectively showcase the benefits of the ATSC 3.0 standard, including in comments submitted in the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding.  NAB also filed a Petition for Rulemaking (NAB Petition) earlier this year asking the FCC to, among other things:

  • Establish a two-phase mandatory transition under which stations in the top 55 markets would move fully to ATSC 3.0 by February 2028 and all remaining markets by February 2030, with limited exceptions for noncommercial educational or smaller, independent stations;
  • Eliminate the “substantially similar” requirement prior to the scheduled 2027 sunset date;
  • Relax the 95 percent coverage threshold required for expedited application processing;
  • Update the tuner and carriage standards to ensure that consumers can continue to receive broadcast programming as the industry transitions to ATSC 3.0; and
  • Consider updates to the MVPD carriage rules, including the “good quality signal” rule.

The Media Bureau received more than 900 comments and replies in response to the NAB Petition in a pleading cycle that closed in June 2025. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

With publication of OMB approval in the Federal Register, today was the effective date for amendments to Section 73.1212(j) of the FCC’s Rules, which governs sponsorship identification for broadcast programming that “has been provided by a foreign governmental entity.”  Under those amendments, broadcast licensees would need to use one of two recordkeeping methods to demonstrate compliance with the foreign sponsorship disclosure rules.

Late today, however, the FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice stating:

By this Public Notice, the Bureau announces that OMB has approved the rule modifications which revise requirements under 47 CFR § 73.1212(j)(3).  Accordingly, these revised requirements are now effective as of June 10, 2025.  However, the Bureau defers requiring compliance with the revised rules under 47 CFR § 73.1212(j)(3) until 6 months after June 10, 2025, or December 8, 2025. Only new leases and renewals of existing leases entered into on or after the compliance date must comply with the rule modifications.

So while the amended rules did go into effect today, broadcasters won’t need to come into compliance with the new recordkeeping requirements until December 8, 2025.  Until that time, you can read a detailed description of how the currently applicable pre-amendment rule works here.

Hopefully, today’s announced delay is a cause for optimism that a deregulatory FCC might use the additional time to streamline these cumbersome requirements.  If not, however, on December 8, 2025, stations will need to maintain records verifying whether a party leasing airtime is a “foreign governmental entity” for purposes of providing adequate disclosures through one of the following two recordkeeping methods:

Certification Approach

Stations and lessees of airtime must each complete a written certification reflecting that the station made the required inquiries regarding foreign governmental sponsorship.  Parties may use the FCC’s own “check-box” templates (Appendices C and D to the FCC’s Order), or create their own certification forms, provided that the forms collectively address the following required certifications:

  • Whether the licensee informed the airtime lessee of the foreign sponsorship disclosure requirement;
  • Whether the licensee asked about, and whether the lessee is, a “foreign governmental entity,” which includes foreign governments, foreign political parties, agents of foreign principals (as defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), and U.S.-based foreign media outlets;
  • Whether the licensee asked about, and whether the lessee knows of, any entity or individual further back in the production or distribution chain that meets the definition of a foreign governmental entity and has provided some form of inducement to air the programming;
  • Whether the licensee sought a written certification from the lessee certifying lessee’s answers; and
  • Whether the licensee obtained the necessary information for a disclosure where one is required.

These certifications must be dated and signed by an appropriate representative of each party and retained in the licensee’s records as discussed below.

Screenshot Approach

As an alternative to certifications, licensees may ask lessees to provide screenshots of their search results when searching for themselves in the following two federal databases:

This option places the responsibility for conducting the searches on the lessee and, the FCC believes, avoids triggering the investigatory concerns raised by the D.C. Circuit. Licensees must still conduct and document the same underlying foreign sponsorship inquiries (but without need of written certifications) and retain the lessee responses in their records.

Regardless of which approach a station adopts by December 8, it must retain documentation of its diligence efforts—whether certifications or screenshots—for the remainder of the license term or one year, whichever is longer.  The records may be stored in either the licensee’s Public Inspection File or in its internal files, as long as the documents are promptly made available to the FCC upon request.

Published on:

By

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) yesterday filed a Petition for Rulemaking asking the FCC to establish a “clear timeline” to complete the transition to the ATSC 3.0 (a/k/a “NextGen TV”) television transmission standard.  The Petition follows last week’s NAB ex parte meeting with Chairman Carr and Acting Chief of the Media Bureau, Erin Boone, in which it advocated for a comprehensive industry-wide plan to expedite completion of the transition (along with measures to modernize and/or eliminate local and national broadcast ownership restrictions and reopen the long-dormant vMVPD proceeding).

The Petition for Rulemaking calls for a 2-phase approach to ending ATSC 1.0 transmissions and fully transitioning to the NextGen TV standard.  Phase 1 would require stations in the top 55 markets (representing approximately 70% of the U.S. population) to transition to ATSC 3.0 by February 2028, with limited waivers for small or noncommercial stations if necessary.  Phase 2 would require stations in the remaining markets to transition to ATSC 3.0 by February 2030.

In support of this transition plan, the Petition highlights a number of NextGen TV consumer benefits, including:

  • Improving the viewer experience with 4K ultra high-definition video, interactive broadcast apps, a high dynamic range picture, and improved audio with dialog enhancement to make programming more accessible;
  • Making available for the first time the Broadcast Positioning System (BPS), a new technology that leverages NextGen TV to transmit precise timing signals to address critical positioning, navigation and timing needs that is less vulnerable to jamming, spoofing, and cyberattacks than GPS, ensuring that critical systems remain operational during GPS disruptions.
  • Unlocking the “Broadcast Internet,” which can be used to relieve content delivery network congestion for high-demand streaming programming, deliver time-sensitive information to first responders in heavy crowd situations where mobile networks are overloaded, expand distance learning and telehealth accessibility, and enable many other datacasting applications;
  • Disseminating advanced emergency information during natural disasters and other emergencies; and
  • Ensuring continued public access to popular content, as the ability to offer 4K high dynamic range transmissions of sporting events may determine whether these events will remain available free over the air or will migrate to pay services that deliver a higher quality experience than the current ATSC 1.0 standard permits.

The Petition emphasizes that while broadcasters have made significant progress in rolling out NextGen TV over the past few years, a complete and coordinated transition will be necessary to take full advantage of NextGen TV’s capabilities and avoid trade-offs in picture quality and signal robustness that current capacity constraints impose when broadcasters are required to transmit duplicative signals in both ATSC 1.0 and 3.0. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Many television broadcasters were left scratching their heads last month when a longtime waiver associated with the FCC’s emergency information accessibility rules expired on November 26.  That confusion was resolved today, when the Media Bureau granted the National Association of Broadcasters’ (“NAB”) request for a retroactive extension of the waiver of the “audible crawl” rule for inherently graphical non-textual information.

As we’ve previously detailed, the “audible crawl” rule requires TV stations and other video programming distributors to use a secondary audio stream to aurally present any emergency information that is presented visually (e.g., in an on-screen crawl) in non-newscast programming.  Ever since the rule went into effect on May 26, 2015, however, the FCC has granted a limited waiver for inherently graphical information—think Doppler radar and weather maps—acknowledging it is not yet technologically feasible for broadcasters to aurally convey such information.

On November 15, 2024, the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) filed a Petition for Rulemaking asking the FCC to amend the rule and clarify that the requirement to audibly present inherently graphical non-textual emergency information applies only if a station is not already displaying a text crawl that shares the same or similar information depicted in the on-screen graphic (which the station would, under existing rules, be required to make aurally available).  The FCC issued a public notice seeking comment on NAB’s petition on November 25, 2024.  The public notice did not extend the existing waiver, which subsequently expired on November 26, leaving broadcasters to decide whether to continue airing such inherently graphical information without providing an audible crawl, or to cease airing such information altogether. Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

At its final Open Meeting of 2024, the FCC on December 11 adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on the elimination or updating of several rules applicable to broadcast stations, as well as other changes intended to clarify ambiguities and to make the rules consistent with current procedures.

The NPRM covers minor rule updates, including:

  • Replacing references to the Consolidated Database System (CDBS), with references to the Licensing Management System (LMS);
  • Updating Form Names;
  • Updating inconsistent terminology referring to the Table of Assignments/Allotments;
  • Removing obsolete television Incentive Auction rule language; and
  • Consolidating rules for petitions to deny under Section 73.3584.

The FCC is also proposing to codify existing Commission interpretations and practices into the rules.  For example, the NPRM proposes to:

  • Codify the current practice of interpreting Section 73.870(e) to mean that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed;
  • Update Section 73.807 to reflect the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” station as including construction permittees in addition to licensees;
  • Codify when applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits must give local public notice of their applications; and
  • Codify the existing interpretation of the “Signature Rule” (Section 73.3513) allowing “directors” of corporations to sign FCC applications, and to expand the universe of who may sign an FCC application on behalf of a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association to include a “duly authorized employee.”

With respect to more substantive revisions, the NPRM is proposing to: Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this week, the FCC opened CORES to accept FY 2024 regulatory fee payments and announced a payment deadline of September 26, 2024.  Since that time, however, broadcasters have encountered a number of issues when trying to pay their fees.  The most common issues include:

  • Difficulty accessing the system
  • Assessment of inaccurate fees
  • Failure to assess fees for all stations associated with a licensee’s FRN
  • Stations being listed in incorrect service categories (e.g., a TV translator being listed as a full-power TV station, and vice versa)
  • Fee-exempt stations being listed as feeable

The FCC today acknowledged that incorrect population count information in particular is resulting in incorrect fee assessments for a significant number of AM and FM stations.  In response, the FCC has temporarily deactivated the fccfees.com lookup site and has also added the following notice on the CORES log-in page:

NOTICE: The FCC is continuing to do its due diligence to reevaluate the population count information for AM and FM broadcasters for FY 2024 regulatory fees. We expect to have this situation resolved early next week. In the meantime, we request that AM and FM broadcasters do not make any payments in CORES. Thank you for your patience.

Accordingly, AM and FM broadcasters should hold off on generating their fee reports or submitting regulatory fee payments to the FCC until this issue is resolved.  Other broadcasters would also be wise to pay close attention to the fees that CORES assesses for their stations to ensure that they do not under- or over-pay and that all stations are properly accounted for.  We recommend that you seek assistance from experienced FCC counsel if you encounter any of the issues listed above (or other system issues). As noted in our previous post, failure to pay in full can lead to significant interest and penalties (and efforts to recoup overpayments may be time consuming).

Published on:

By and

Following last week’s adoption of the 2024 Regulatory Fee Report and Order, which we discussed here, the Federal Communications Commission today released its annual Public Notice setting 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 26, 2024 as the payment deadline for fiscal year 2024 regulatory fees.  The FCC also opened  the online system for submitting those payments.

Note that the FCC’s old “Fee Filer” system has been retired and regulatory fees must now be paid via the FCC’s Commission Registration System (CORES).  Logging into CORES requires users to set up a personal account using an email and password of their choosing.  We have previously provided step-by-step instructions for how to do so here.  Additionally, in March 2024, CORES moved to a two-step login authentication process, whereby each time a user logs into CORES, the user will be prompted to request a six-digit verification code that will be emailed to the email address(es) associated with the username.  The user must then enter the code into CORES to finish the log-in process.

As this is still a fairly new process, we suggest logging in well before the payment deadline to ensure you are able to access the system and successfully pay your regulatory fees, as late or unpaid fees incur interest and are assessed a 25% penalty, and can put a licensee in “red light” status.  Stations that are unable to make their regulatory fee payment by the deadline or that need additional relief such as a payment plan or reduction/deferral of their fees should make those requests to the FCC as soon as possible.  The Commission released a separate Public Notice detailing the procedures to apply for such relief.

Published on:

By and

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week released a highly anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposed disclosure requirements for political ads containing AI-generated content.  The item was adopted earlier this month by a 3-2 party-line vote, nearly two months after FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel first announced its circulation among the commissioners for consideration.

As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule would require radio and TV broadcasters to (1) inquire of any person making a request to buy airtime for political advertising whether the ad contains AI-generated content; (2) make on-air disclosures of AI use with regard to political ads containing AI-generated content immediately before or during their airing; and (3) include a disclosure of AI use in the station’s Political File records for each such ad buy.  While this post focuses on the NPRM’s broadcast-specific proposals, we note that it proposes similar obligations for cable operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite providers, and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service licensees engaged in program origination, as well as for Section 325 permit holders (those authorized to export programming for transmission back into the United States).

Aware that such rules might conflict with similar efforts by states and other federal agencies, the NPRM characterizes the proposed disclosure requirements as a “complement” to efforts to regulate AI in political advertising that are underway in various states and at the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which we wrote about here and here.  However, FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey made his contrary views clear in a letter last month to FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel in which he stated that the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction in this area and “the FCC lacks legal authority to promulgate conflicting disclaimer requirements only for political communications.”

The proposal would require broadcasters to do the following:

Duty of Inquiry:  Broadcasters would need to inform each political advertiser, at the time the station agrees to air a political ad, of the requirement that stations must air a disclosure for any ad that includes AI-generated content and then inquire of the buyer as to whether the ad includes such content.  While styled as a “simple inquiry,” the NPRM acknowledges various challenges that are likely to arise.  It seeks comments on how to deal with such situations, including, for example, where a station is working with a media placement agency that had no role in the creation of the ad and which may not know whether it includes AI-generated content, or the station receives political content from a network or syndicator and has no direct contact with the advertiser.

On-Air Disclosure:  A broadcast station that receives a candidate or issue ad containing AI-generated content would need to air a disclosure immediately before or during the ad to inform viewers of the ad’s use of AI.  The proposal contemplates and seeks comment on the following standardized language for the disclosure: “[The following]/[this] message contains information generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.”  Once again, the NPRM acknowledges there are challenges broadcasters will face in complying with the proposed rule.  These include (a) what should a station do if it has received no response to its inquiry about AI use; (b) what should a station do if it was told by the person or entity buying the time that an ad contains no AI-generated content and is later informed by a credible third party that the ad does include AI-generated content (and who should qualify as a “credible third party?”); and (c) what should a station do when it receives political programming through a network and lacks any information from the advertiser on AI use as well as the ability to insert a disclosure in network-delivered programming?  The NPRM seeks comment on these and many other issues that may affect a station’s ability to comply with the proposed disclosure requirement.

Online Disclosure: Adding yet more to the burden on broadcasters, the NPRM proposes requiring broadcasters to include in their online Political Files the following written disclosure for each political ad containing AI-generated content: “This message contains information generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.”

Because of the FCC’s limited jurisdiction, the proposed rules would apply only to certain FCC-regulated entities, doing nothing to address the use of AI in political ads that voters see and hear on social media or elsewhere.  As a result, it would impose a significant burden on regulated entities while leaving unregulated entities like social media—the primary source of deceptive political information—completely unregulated.  This would incentivize advertisers to put their AI ads on any media other than radio and TV, both because of their desire not to include disclosures and the added bureaucracy/delay involved in the multi-step process stations would need to follow with advertisers to determine if a disclosure is needed (and the added time needed to then insert such a disclosure). Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Chairwoman Rosenworcel announced on July 16 that the Commission is considering adoption of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposals to regulate AI-generated robocalls. The draft NPRM, released this afternoon, is the outgrowth of a November 2023 Notice of Inquiry and follows several recent FCC actions intended to mitigate the potential for bad actors to use AI technology in robocalls to mislead consumers. Over the last year, the FCC (1) has declared that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) restrictions on the use of “artificial or prerecorded voices” apply to AI-generated voices; (2) proposed a multimillion dollar fine against a person suspected of causing illegal robocalls that used a voice artificially created to sound like President Biden; and (3) sent letters to major U.S. telecommunications companies requesting information about their efforts to prevent illegal robocalls that use AI technology from reaching customers. Separately, the FCC is also considering whether to adopt disclosure requirements for political advertising that uses AI-generated content.

Continue reading →